Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!ubvax!vsi1!lmb
From: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: hayes 9600 vs. trailblazer
Message-ID: <504@vsi1.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 88 18:12:43 GMT
References: <8804110136.AA16978@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <15612@onfcanim.UUCP> <494@edsews.EDS.COM> <280@telebit.UUCP> <19963@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Reply-To: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA
Lines: 25

In article <19963@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
|
|In article <280@telebit.UUCP> rls@telebit.UUCP ( Sr. Systems Engineer) writes:
|>4.  So the general rule of thumb is, only compress ONCE in the data stream, 
|>    either in the hardware (modem) or in the software (computer). Usually, it 
|>    will be desireable to compress in the computer, unless the computer cycles
|>    are scarce or expensive.
|
|The problem is that the typical UUCP user doesn't have real control over
|this.  The queue for a remote site will typically contain a mix of jobs,
|news already compressed, file copies possibly compressed, and mail not
|compressed.  There is no provision either for indicating which jobs
|should be compressed or having uucico switch modem options based on each
|call much less each job.
|

I have had compression turned on on my blazers, to make sure I compress
mail transfers.  Since this represents less than 5% of the traffic, it won't
be a win if throughput of already-compressed news is affected negatively.  Is
there a definitive statement on this?
---
*   *   O     Larry Blair
  *   *   O   VICOM Systems Inc.     sun!pyramid----\
    *   *   O 2520 Junction Ave.     uunet!ubvax----->!vsi1!lmb
  *   *   O   San Jose, CA  95134    ucbvax!tolerant/
*   *   O     +1-408-432-8660